Yesterday I published an email from Nancy Zettler, long-time spokesman and new “chair” of District 300 tax hike committee tax hike committee Advance 300.
She was trying to convince District 300 board members that no “pay-to-play” or conflict of interest restrictions are needed.
After I put that article up, what enters my email inbox but a 2005 letter from architectural firm Burnidge Cassell and Associates.
Dated February 25, 2005, it is titled,
“RE: Architect Services for Life Safety Reporting.”
It’s apparently a pitch for a contract.
Popping off the front page of a five-page letter and attachments is item number 2.
After pointing out, “Burnidge Cassell Associates has been the architectural firm of record for CUSD since 1999,” item 2 says,
”Personally raising in the range of $100,000 plus for different referendum committees.”
Understand why this article is titled,
You can enlarge the first page by clicking on its image. Links of stories about District 300 vendors’ contributions to tax hike committees are contained in yesterday’s story.
Cal, I have been Chair or Co-chair of Advance 300 since its origin.
What jumps off the page at me from Mr. Burnidge’s letter is the line that you conveniently left out –
“PROVIDING GREATLY REDUCED ARCHITECTURAL FEES AND SERVICES ON THE FOUR NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS….”
If Burnidge is so horrible, then why does your guy keep voting to pay their bills?
Finally, please ask him why he voted in support of West Dundee’s TIF last night. While the rest of the Board members voted not to support it, “Mr. Fiscal Responsibility” voted for it.
Considering that the board indicated last night that they are expecting more TIFs from various municipalities in D300 in the not-so-distant future, if he keeps this up he could vote to TIF away all of the gains we’ve made financially. I’m sure that the taxpayers of D300 would rather have their tax dollar go to bettering education here in the district than to finance a developer’s project.
And who are these developers? Maybe McHenry County Blog should “investigate” whether or not the Roesers or Otto own a piece of the property that wants the TIF.
That’s just the tip of a very large iceberg, Mr. Skinner. I have in hand a letter dated May 8, 2006 from Charles Burnidge to Dr. Crates, D300 CFO. The letter is a recommendation to contract with B&H Industries for Printing Services, and the contract is worth over $400,000. And in the letter Charles insists his firm (BCA) “consulted with two of the largest printing services in the Chicago Metro area, and the resultant charges by B&H Industries were found to be very competitive.” However, I don’t believe anyone at D300 offices ever saw those bids, is that breaking the law? And if you check out the Kane Elections Website, you will note that B&H contributed to Advance300 during the March 2006 building referendum. Paying to Play!
Oh Nancy, let your imagination run wild – you got busted and there’s evidence (isn’t that what you always ask for). Don’t try to pawn this off on John Ryan, blame yourself for the lack of integrity A300 has in education policy.
Regardless of whether they give discounts or not (which, when it comes to building for schools, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a company charging “full” price – they always seem to add features here and there. But, that is neither here nor there…), they still received the business from the school district after openly admitting “we’ve given money to you, now we want you to give money to us.” Busted…straight busted…
As for Ryan, he voted his conscience – and regardless of whether or not you or I would have done differently (which, I would by the way – I don’t like these TIFs one bit), and he will be accountable the next time he’s up for election. I don’t think there’s any surprise about that, and I don’t doubt you’ll hold his feet to the fire.
Nevertheless, it’s just another demonstration of your ridiculous logical fallacies that permeate every statement you make. But, then again, who needs logic when you’re Nancy Zettler. You’re the chair of A300, and dammit, logic just doesn’t need to be worried about when you’re so right!
Ah Mr. Lee, there you are. Ok Robert, if you really think that there is corruption in D300 then go to the State’s Attorney or the Attorney General with your “evidence”.
And while you’re there ask them to investigate Mr. Ryan and his employer Clarke Mosquito for “pay-to-play” too.
According to the Board of Elections website, Clarke Mosquito has contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the past several years to candidates for local offices.
Many of the municipalities that these candidates now represent have awarded lucrative contracts to Clarke. Per your definition – that’s pay-to-play, right?
For instance, let’s look at the relationship between Clarke and Cal’s hometown, Crystal Lake.
As you may know, Aaron Shepley is CL’s mayor. After giving Mr. Shepley a donation for his successful campaign, Clarke Mosquito “won” the contract for killing mosquitos in CL.
According to your definition it must be pay-to-play; yet where’s the outrage, Robert? I mean, our tax dollars are involved in village government too, right?
And since Mr. Ryan is Clarke’s only Illinois and Wisconsin sales rep, it stands to reason that he was at least aware and probably involved in this “inappropriate” behavior. Yet I don’t see him quitting or hear him publicly calling Clarke and Crystal Lake out for the “pay-for-play”, do you?
I wonder, why not? And why aren’t you jumping all over that?
Yes, Zettler – I’ve taken time out of my busy day to once again spar over your ridiculous statements. I want you to do me one favor – stop bouncing from one subject to another and focus.
1) Just to placate your perverse obsession with John Ryan’s employer, need I remind you that we’ve had the discussion before regarding Ryan’s employer and this pay to play proposal. I don’t think I’ve ever scene you 1) say why Ryan’s employer doing pay to play practices with local village governments means his proposal here is bad, 2) why Ryan wouldn’t propose similar such policies if in such a position on village government, 3) why Ryan should sacrifice his families home and livelihood for one simple policy, and 4) why Ryan is responsible for his employers behavior.
For all your calls for evidence from me, you’re ridiculously scant on the evidence yourself. You give nothing to support your claim that JR has in any way solicited, accepted, or promulgated in any way contracts from local governments on the basis of his employers contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to village referendum campaigns, much as BC&A did in this very open letter to Dr. Crates.
On the risk of sounding juvenile here Nancy, your logical conclusions SUCK! Through this all, you’re still ridiculously obsessed with what John Ryan does instead of whether or not a policy is good or bad. I would almost venture to say that had Mary Warren proposed this – or even better your goddess savior, Mary Fioretti – than you’d be jumping up and down speaking of the policy’s glory.
Now, having said that – I want you to justify the statement in BC&A’s letter as legitimate. I want you to simply give three – or even one – solidly logical reason why BC&A is justifiably entitled to a contract because they personally raised over $100,000 for referendum committees. Do it, if you can.
Now, my disclaimer. Having said all THAT, Illinois should ban pay-to-play on a statewide level. It shouldn’t be allowed. Not at the school board level. Not at the village level. Not at the statehouse.
See, that’s the beauty of it Robert, I am not accusing anyone of pay-to-play so I don’t have to prove or disprove anything.
You on the other hand are apparently accusing both D300 and Clarke Mosquito of pay-to-play so you have what we call the “burden of proof”.
First you need to define pay-to-play. Your definition, apparently, is “if a vendor makes a donation and then receives a contract its pay-to-play”.
If that’s the case then both Clarke and D300 are “guilty”.
But you are wrong – there’s alot more to it than that and you know it.
So, here we are again. You need to prove your unfounded allegations.
As a parent of kids in this district I am sick and tired of people like you with nothing to lose bashing the district with lies and unfounded accusations.
If you believe that you have proof then go to the States’s Attorney. If you don’t have the courage of your convictions to take that step, then stop lying about the district and the people who actually work hard to make our kids’ future better.
I never said that whether what Clarke does is right or wrong. Frankly I don’t think that either scenario, without more proof, constitutes pay-to-play. But Ryan is a rank hypocrite if he condemns the practice in D300 on the one hand but doesn’t object to the exact same practice by his employer on the other.
Of course in the second scenario – he benefits financially, doesn’t he?
So, again, if you really believe that there is corruption in D300, take your “proof” and go to the State’s Attorney or the AG and file a complaint.
But I’ll give you a little free legal advice – you’re gonna need more evidence than just a letter and Stan and Paula’s assumptions.
This is ridiculous – we’ll never go anywhere with this. You refuse to answer the challenge I set forth:
“I want you to justify the statement in BC&A’s letter as legitimate. I want you to simply give three – or even one – solidly logical reason why BC&A is justifiably entitled to a contract because they personally raised over $100,000 for referendum committees. Do it, if you can.”
More than that, I did speak with an attorney about this, and he said considering there is nothing in the statutes that prevents pay-to-play tactics such as this, there’s nothing criminal taking place. HOWEVER, that doesn’t constitute it being a legitimate practice.
Beyond that, Zettler, get off your damned high horse. You may be sick and tired of people like me with “nothing to lose…”, but on the converse of that what do I have to gain? I have no kids in the schools, and I don’t own a home in the area yet. So, honestly ask yourself the question what it is I have to gain from standing for my principles, other than the satisfaction of doing and standing for what I believe is right.
You accuse John Ryan of being a hypocrite, but look at you. If you’re so dedicated to the school district, why don’t you run for the board? Why don’t you stand up and put your name on the line and ask the voters of the district to judge you? Why don’t you do that?
Personally, I don’t think you have to; you don’t have to be a public official to want to do what’s right for your community. And I wouldn’t hold you to that standard, either. For all this hypocrisy you throw around, though, you exhibit a pitiful amount of it yourself. So stop, Nancy, really. Just stop – you’re making a clown out of yourself, and trust me – some of your actions with A300 helped hand those board seats to John Ryan and Monica Clark.
Sorry about the rant, you just touched a nerve with the “nothing to lose…” statement.
So let’s just agree to this one simple premise – you know I’m wrong, I know you’re wrong. Because this is just ridiculous…
Now I’m done.
Ok, Robert since I really believe that you are sincere in your frustration, let me ask you this.
Do you really think that if I thought that there was something illegal, unethical – or even simply detrimental to the district at the hands of the administration that I would sit back and let it happen? I think that you know that I would not.
I would hope that by now that you would realize that if I thought that there WAS something going on that would be detrimental to the district that I would make you and your friends look like Advance 300 members.
There are lots of people who have taken credit for passing the last referenda. There is no one person or contributor that made it happen. Hundreds of us did.
I think that where we part company is that I don’t believe that B,C & A was awarded the contract because they donated money to A300 or anyone else. I think that they were awarded the contracts because they were the best company for the job.
But I will agree with you on one thing. This is a waste of time. Let’s agree to disagree.